Q.1.Chan Faat has an argument with his father during dinner. They are both drinking beer. Chan Faat drinks about six bottles of beer during dinner. They start arguing about a recent football match which they had been watching. Chan Faat becomes very angry and hits his father on the head with his beer glass. The glass breaks and cuts the father above the left eye causing slight bleeding. Chan’s father goes to the kitchen to get a towel and to dry up the blood. Chan Faat continues to drink beer and starts to watch football on the television. About two hours later whilst they are both watching television Chan Faat goes over to the father and says, “Here’s another one for you.” He then punches the father in the face causing a red mark. The police are called and Chan Faat is arrested.

Using the 8-part test discuss in full the possible criminal liability of Chan Faat.(60 marks)

ANSWER GUIDE
A.1.Nobody has died, so do not discuss ‘fatal offences against the person’. Discuss only the ‘non-fatal offences against the person’. Chan Faat may be guilty of both Wounding with intent contrary to s. 17 Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212 in respect of the first attack on father and also Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm contrary to Common Law and punishable under s. 39 of that Ordinance., in respect of the second attack. Discuss the 8-part test in respect of each offence:

(c) by drawing a trigger or in any other manner, attempts to discharge any kind of loaded arms at any person, with intent in any of such cases to maim, disfigure, or disable any person, or to do some other grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of an offence triable upon indictment, and shall be liable to imprisonment for life.

1. Actus Reus
‘Wounds’The continuity of the skin must be broken: R v Wood (1830). The outer covering of the body must be divided, although a division of the internal skin, e.g. in the cheek can be a ‘wound’: R v Smith (L) (1837). Chan’s father is bleeding so there has been a ‘wound’. 2. Mens Rea

This offence has a Basic Intent. The wounding must have been done ‘unlawfully’ – without legal justification. It was. ‘Unlawfully’
The use of this word means that self-defence, defence of others or property, prevention of crime would be defences to a charge.

‘Maliciously’
It must also have been done ‘maliciously’. This means either ‘intentionally’ or ‘recklessly’: see: R v Mowatt
The offence also has a Specific Intent element, which is – “with intent to do some … grievous bodily harm to any person”. ‘Intent’
This means Chan’s object, aim or purpose.
‘Grievous Bodily Harm’
This means really serious bodily injury: DPP v Smith [1961].

It need not be permanent or dangerous: R v Ashman [1858], but can include psychiatric injury: R v Ireland [1998].

3. Co-existence of actus reus and mens rea?
Did the actus reus and mens rea coexist in time? Yes.

4. Voluntary Actions by Chan?
Were Chan’s actions voluntary? Probably. No evidence of automatism on the facts.

5. Factual Causation?
‘But for’ the actions of Chan Faat would the father have sustained the injuries? No! Therefore factual causation is established.

6. Legal Causation?

Were the actions of Chan Faat more than de minimis? More than a trifling cause? Were they the ‘substantial and operative’ cause of the injury to the father....

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...﻿In law there is a fundamental principle which is guaranteed by the constitution that every person is innocent until proven to be guilty by the courts of law, in criminal law there are two principles of criminalliability which have to be relied upon in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused person. Therefore the aim of this essay is to discuss the two principles of law for criminalliability with reference to the Penal Code Act, Chapter Eighty Seven (87) of the Laws of Zambia and Zambian decided cases.
In order to effectively do this, the essay will begin by generally talking about the two principles of law for criminalliability which are the “Actus reus” and the “mens rea” and in order to critically discuss them, focus will be made on the Homicide offence of ‘murder’ with the use of relevant Zambian cases.
The terms ‘Actus reus’ and ‘Mens rea’ are derived from the Latin Maxim; “Actus non facit reum mens sit rea” which mean that there cannot be such a thing as legal guilt where there is no moral guilt.1
The learned author Simon E Kulusika defines ‘Actus reus’ as “whatever act or omission or state of affairs as laid down in the definition of the particular crime charged in addition to any surrounding circumstances…and the ‘mens rea’ as the state of mind or fault which is required in the definition of the crime in question”2
In order for a person to be...

...layer 3 headers of the packet. The MPLS header “Shim” contains one or more labels, these are known as label stack, each of these labels are four bytes in size and contain four fields.
Figure 1 – MPLS label structure
Figure 1, above provides a graphical example on how an MPLS label is structure. The “Label” field contains the label value and is 20 bits in size. The Exp field stands for “Experimental Use” is 3 bits in size and it is used to assign the Class of Service (CoS), priority and ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification) for QoS purposes. The S field is 1 bit in size, if this is set it signifies that the current label is the last in a stack. The last field is the TTL it determines the time to live of the packet; this field is 8 bits in size.
In simple terms MPLS works by adding an identifier (a label or “Shim”) to the packets as soon as it enters the MPLS network thru a Label Edge Router (LER). LERs are the most advanced routers in an MPLS network due to the fact that they are responsible for the ingress and egress of an MPLS network, the LERs add a label to incoming packets and remove a label of outgoing packets as they enter and exit the MPLS enabled network. The packets now with labels allow the Label Switch Routers (LSR) to determine when and with what degree of priority packets are sent. Before continuing it is important to understand that in an MPLS network LSRs and LERs regularly send each other label and reachability information...

...CriminalLiability Essay
Criminalliabilities are conditions of being actually or potentially subject to a legal obligation. Liability means legal responsibility for one’s acts or omission, also when acts which harms society, and which are prosecuted by the government. Sometimes certain negligence can lead to criminalliability. Liability needs to be distinguished from the following concepts:
* culpability (purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently) - infers intent
* capacity (infancy, intoxication, insanity) - capacity defenses
* responsibility (volition, free will, competency) - presumptions
When is a crime committed? When a criminal act is done with a criminal intent takes place. Crimes such as solicitation, conspiracy, and attempt can be committed a punished independently from prosecution and punishment of the crime that was the intended outcome.
Solicitation or Incitement to commit a crime is attempting to get another to commit a crime, also described as an attempt to commit a crime. Solicitation does not have to be successful; the crime is committed even if the person solicited refuses to cooperate and repudiates the proposal.
The “Overt Act” is an open act, one that can clearly be proved by evidence, and from which criminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to a mere...

...Principles of CriminalLiability
1/16/2013
Student ID:
Word Count: 2482
Criminal activities are very common in our society. With the intention to hamper the property of other people or causing ill effect to others, criminal activities are occurred usually. Sometimes people involve themselves with some activities to injure others due to personal clash or from ill temperament. Some activities which may be done to cause simple injury may bring the liability of a murderer or manslaughter. To understand the situation laws regarding criminalliability of murderer or manslaughter are required reviewing. This case study has been designed to discuss these issues. In the stated case it has been shown that the simple intention to injure other one caused death to a third party. Here, the accused tampered the brakes of another person’s so that person would have an accident and injure himself. But due to this tampering another person got accident and who eventually died. Considering the situation this study will discuss whether the person who committed this activity is liable for murder or manslaughter or any other criminalliabilities.
Nadeem and Abid are next-door neighbors who are having their own car. One day they argued regarding card parking in the road that is outside of their houses....

...mitigating circumstances reduce the liability to manslaughter.
• Insanity, Provocation, self-defence or excess self-defence, Substantial impairment by abnormailty of the mind.
• Elements: 1) The act (provocation, insanity?)
2) Caused death (Royal)
3) The test involved each act
1. Provocation
• s 23 (1)- act or omission in which it causes the death under the provocation will have their sentence dropped from murder to manslaughter.
• s 18(1)(b)- ‘every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter’
• reduces murder to manslaughter
• (R v Dib)-mistake, (R v Lees)- words qualify as provocation, (R v Hall)- 3rd party conduct, (R v Davis)- provocation requires conduct of vision to occur in sight or hearing.
Two partTest:
1. Act/omission of accused was resulted of loss of self-control by decease conducts. S 23 (2)(a) (subjective test) ( connect between victim and loss of self-control
a) Hurtful gesture or insulting words
b) Conduct taken as a whole
c) Relationship between the two. (Chhay)
2. S 23(b)- the decease conduct could have induct any ordinary person to form an intent to kill or cause GBH before act or any pervious time. (Objective test) (Green). Applying objective test person must take into account: not intoxicated and...

...Using the IDEA structure for Criminal Law application questions – example answer.
In response to questions from the Jan’ ’10 exam.
1bi) “Discuss the criminalliability of Ashok for the incident at the traffic lights.”
* Identify and Define
Ashok could be criminally liable for the common law offence of assault; an assault takes place when the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
* Explain Actus Reus and Mens Rea
The actus reus of this offence is any act which causes the victim (v) to apprehend an immediate infliction of unlawful violence (iiuv). No force need actually be applied, creating a fear is sufficient, as was illustrated by Logdon and Lamb. The v must fear that violence threatened is immediate, in Smith this was held to mean as part of the current activity, when the v was separated from the defendant (d) by a glass window.
The mens rea of this offence as stated in Savage is intention or recklessness as to causing v to apprehend iiuv.
* Apply
Ashok has fulfilled the actus reus when he pointed his fingers at him in the shape of a gun a mouthed that Ben should be shot, and Ben ‘was very scared.’ He most definitely apprehended an iiuv. With regards to the immediacy issue, although they were both in cars at the time, Ben most likely did fear personal violence as part of what Ashok was doing at that current time.
Ashok,...

...The first issue to deal with here a possible common assault by Simon. An assault
was defined in the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner as when
the defendant causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal
violence. The mens rea of an assault is to intentionally or recklessly cause the victim
to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.
In this scenario it is stated that Simon screamed abuse and picked up a knife,
attempting to throw it at his wife Rachel, which would have put her in fear of
immediate unlawful personal violence. Simon did so intentionally meaning that he
would most likely be found guilty of a common assault.
The next issue in terms of Simon’s liability is battery . A battery was defined by Lord
Steyn in the case of R v Ireland as an ‘unlawful application of force by the
defendant upon the victim’. The mens rea of battery is intention to apply unlawful
physical force or being reckless as to whether such force is applied. In this scenario
Simon threw a knife which hit Moira and although he did not intend to hit her he still
intended to hit Rachel, therefore the intention was still there and he has the
neccessary mens rea required to constitute a battery.
The other issue in relation to Simon throwing the knife is the subject of transferred
malice. The doctrine of transferred malice applies where the mens rea of one offence
can be transferred to another, as in the...

...﻿
Professional Regulation and CriminalLiability Paper
Rannya Abdul-hadi
HCS-430
June 29th, 2015
Jeanette Fetter
Professional Regulations and CriminalLiability
The functions of the health care professionals are regulated by laws set to ensure that they observe the highest levels of professionalism in their practices. However, these laws vary from state to state, which means that certain actions can lead to litigations in some states, but not in others. The physicians form part of the health care professional group that at a high risk of litigation given the significance of their functions in the health care industry. This paper will focus on regulations of physicians’ practices and their potential criminalliability in the state of Michigan.
The civil complaint process used by consumers in Michigan to file cases of suspected physician incompetence of misconduct
The consumers of the health care services have the right to raise complaints against physicians who do not demonstrate professionalism when delivering health care services to them. Complaints may include the use of hateful or abusive language, uncooperative attitude, wrong medication, incomplete medical information, and delayed diagnosis, failure to meet the treatment as well as assessment expectations, rudeness, and excessive pain during care delivery among other types of complaints (Halperin, 2000).
Consumers...